Also, the time that the Celts began to migrate across Western Europe, is roughly contiguous with the expansion of Rome, as a World power. By about 500 BC, they had settled in Britain and Ireland. But those lands were actually already populated. And by the time the Romans arrived in Britain, (around 60AD) the Celts had established themselves here, largely because their Tribal social structure was amenable to the Tribal social structure already in place. When the Romans took Britain, it had become the last refuge of the free Celtic/Gaulish Tribes who had not succumbed to the Empire. So as they were pursuing a campaign against the Celts at the time, the Romans, naturally enough, saw Britain as a Celtic land. The Tribes, as Celtic Tribes.

So the earliest documented mainstream History of Britain got written from a Roman viewpoint, with all the bias associated with a conquering power. But subsequent research tells us that this was far from the case. There was, in Britain, an extremely diverse mix of different Tribal cultures. There were communities of Farmers. Of Warriors. Of Merchants. Of Religious communities. There was, even back as far as 100ad, a community of early Christians living on the West Coast of Ireland. But this diversity was completely irrelevant to the Romans. They weren't concerned with belief systems. But the one unifying factor that tied these very different early British peoples together, was that the Druid caste was common to them all. Their influence was the established long before the Romans got here.

The oral Traditions tell that the first 'King' of London was a Man called Brutus. Who arrived with his people as a diaspora, displaced by some mainland European famine or War. A seafaring people, which suggests Mediterranean roots. And London, in it's earliest form, was a place of Temples. Temples of not just Hellenic Gods, but Hellenic Mystery Cults. Alongside Egyptian Mystery Cults. This is important, because it suggests that whoever established London, was from a culture that shared both Hellenic and Egyptian spiritual ideals. Which rules out the Athenian Greeks, who used a Pantheon of solely Arcadian origin.

So which culture, other than the ancient Greeks, could have had these two systems side by side? Who's Culture may have been completely overwritten by History? Leaving just a few old stories, written maybe 1000 years after it's fall?

Back to Britain. One of the Tribes at the time of the Roman expansion into Britain, were the Trinovante. They were Merchant based, and had import/export resources from all over the known World. These connections followed the Chaldean trade routes. And the Chaldeans were long, long gone as a Seafaring Race. So we have a Chaldean connection, a an Orcadian/Greco connection, an Egyptian connection, and all this, tied together historically, with a Druid connection. The only culture with connections however tenuous, with all these other cultures, that we can be sure of Historically, is the early Britons. Who, for the first 1500 years after the Romans, were believed to be a solely Celtic people.

The Trinovante, had all the Mediterranean links, the historical Chaldean links, Greco/Egyptian links, the pre Celtic British links, and the Druid links. They are perhaps the most important proof yet for an unbroken, unifying cultural, spiritual, and religious tradition that spans Millennia. And the name, Trinovante? (From the Romans/Latin, of course) Troy + Novante, or "New Trojans".

So if Brutus and his people arrived as a diaspora from the Trojan Wars, maybe the escaped family of old Priam himself, then this puts him in Britain at maybe 4000 bc. The same time that the great Stone Circle builders of Stonehenge, Carnac, and Avebury were the main cultural paradigm. Which ties the culture in with the other Stone circle builders, from the Himalayas to Scandinavia. And the earliest of these, sprang from the before the first Agricultural Cultures and their Corn Goddesses. The Avenues in Carnac are aligned with other Neolithis structures in Britain. The suggestion that there may still have been a land bridge between Britain and Normandy at the time, has yet to be embraced by the mainstream Historians, but the clues are all there. Which asks the question, were these Cultures actually building Stone Circles, and burial structures, before the end of the last Ice Age cut Britain off? Most of Britain's prehistoric Stones, are in the South West. Salisbury Plain has more Neolithic and prehistoric stone structures than any where else in the World. 200 square miles, and you can't move up there without stumbling over old Wheel Barrows, Long Barrows, Round Barrows, Prehistoric terraced field systems, and Ditched embankments etcFrom elaborately chambered Barrows, to simple "hole in the ground covered with a big rock" Barrows. Salisbury plain, and the Devon Cornwall peninsula, are absolutely covered in such sites. And these were the only areas in the Whole of Britain that were not covered by Glacial ice sheets in the last Ice age.

The modern idea of Druidism, is a cobbled together mish mash of fiction, half remembered Medieval Romances, the Renaissance, and it's neo classical themes, and hastily compiled Victorian revisionist bullshit.

The true tradition of the Druids, is still open to debate and speculation, but now, it is becoming a much more informed debate, and there are solid, archeological facts to speculate about. No doubt, with the present levels of access to the Mysteries of the Western Hermetic Secret Societies, especially some of the more esoteric Masonic based Lodges, then more links can be established from the secret stuff they've been archiving. It doesn't even matter if they understand these keys or not, the important thing is they have helped to preserve them in as original form as possible. Like carving them into the Stones of Europe's Cathedrals. Right in the face of the "Enemy". Written in Stone, is as they say, written in stone.

The Ancient Druids (Not to be confused with any modern order of Druids, whose whole system is based on conjecture and speculation) had many roles in Celtic Tribal society. They were advisers, record keepers, Judges, Historians, Diplomats, Spies, Healers, and non participatory officiators of any Ceremonial events. Over the 800 years that we have written first hand evidence for them, their roles in Celtic/Gaulish Tribal society changed as needed, but they were never described as a Priesthood, or Holy Men, more a caste of Philosophers, or Wise men. There were three orders of this elite. Bards, who kept the oral traditions and Histories, Vates, who interpreted omens, and performed Sacrifices, and the Druids, who were the officiators at all ceremonies. They had to be present for any sacrifices, and sanction any interpretation by the Vates. They were the ones who administered Tribal Laws, and oversaw any disputes between people. Although they were present in every Tribe throughout Celtic and Gaulish Europe, there is no evidence that they were actually a Celtic people at all. To the contrary. Much of what is known about them suggests Mesopotamian and Chaldean origins. They were learned in Mesopotamian Astrological techniques, and unlike the Celts, used a Lunar calender to keep track of the more complex astronomical data. They weren't superstitious or provincial in their worldview, and over 800 years, maintained a network of communication throughout the whole of Europe, and possibly Mediterranean Africa too.

Wrong. We have at least 2000 years of first hand written testimony about Druids. Caesar wrote about them extensively after meeting then in gaul in around 50 BC. Tacitus wrote about them after the Romans wiped them out in Anglesey, Britain, in 60 AD.

Wrong. We have at least 2000 years of first hand written testimony about Druids. Caesar wrote about them extensively after meeting then in gaul in around 50 BC. Tacitus wrote about them after the Romans wiped them out in Anglesey, Britain, in 60 AD.

I do believe Serp meant that the Druids themselves did not keep written records of their history.

Caesar was implacably at odds with the Druids. It was in fact only a few years ago that the law he imposed, condemning any Druid who set foot on the soil of Britain to death was officially repealed. It was not until then that Druidism was recognised as an actual religion in the UK.

Caesar hacked down their sacred oak grove and killed 700 of them in one murderous onslaught. He was not out to make sure he left history an accurate and balanced portrait of them, now was he?

As for Tacitus. He was not only an ancient historian, and therefore as they all were, inclined to hyperbole and flights of fancy.... but a Roman one. Thus any of his reports about the enemy must be read with extreme care to keep in mind what his own political and theological prejudices might have been.

So Caesar and Tacitus cannot be cited as "first hand written testimony" on Druidry. They are invaluable sources for looking at Roman responses to Druids, but can in no way be seen as valid primary sources on Druidry itself.

You could call Serp out on the facts surrounding any number of things nye. He has admitted himself on many occasions to pulling opinions out of his arse.

But not on Druidry. On Druidry he knows that of which he speaks.

Logged

If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.

You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands.

The Edge there's no honest way to explain it as the only people who really know where it is have gone over.

Caesar is indeed a writer of first hand written testimony about the Druids. He saw them for himself and he fought them in gaul, so how can he be anything other than an eye witness? The medieval writers of 800 years ago to which a previous poster referred were not first hand observers of Druids. Take the Mabinogion, it was finally written down in the middle ages. It is about as contemporary with its writers as the Bible. But, some people believe it is authentic and others do not. As the bard said, so let it be with Caesar.

And, to dismiss Tacitus and his contemporaries as "inclined to hyperbole and flights of fancy" simply because they were ancient is, quite frankly, plain ignorant.

I do beleive the point that was being made was that Ceaser and any other Roman of the day would have a slanted view of what or who the druids were. And what ever they wrote would reflect they political point of view.Do you really wonder what Hitler would have wrote about the Jews if he had won the war and wiped them off the face of the Earth?

Wrong. We have at least 2000 years of first hand written testimony about Druids. Caesar wrote about them extensively after meeting then in gaul in around 50 BC. Tacitus wrote about them after the Romans wiped them out in Anglesey, Britain, in 60 AD.

There is actually very little first hand written testimony regarding Druids. Apart from Caesar, there are two or three credible first hand accounts. Pytheas being the earliest. Although he doesn't mention Druids specifically, he travelled to Britain in the 4th Century BC and describes the social structure and religious beliefs of the Tribes. Strabo, often cited as source for Druidry took much of his account from the lost books of Posidonius, who had first hand accounts and histories.

"Among all the Gallic peoples, generally speaking, there are three sets of men who are held in exceptional honour; the Bards, the Vates and the Druids. The Bards are singers and poets; the Vates, diviners and natural philosophers; while the Druids, in addition to natural philosophy, study also moral philosophy. The Druids are considered the most just of men, and on this account they are entrusted with the decision, not only of the private disputes, but of the public disputes as well; so that, in former times, they even arbitrated cases of war and made the opponents stop when they were about to line up for battle, and the murder cases, in particular, had been turned over to them for decision. Further, when there is a big yield from these cases, there is forthcoming a big yield from the land too, as they think. However, not only the Druids, but others as well, say that men's souls, and also the universe, are indestructible, although both fire and water will at some time or other prevail over them.

Again, in addition to their witlessness, there is also that custom, barbarous and exotic, which attends most of the northern tribes — mean the fact that when they depart from the battle they hang the heads of their enemies from the necks of their horses, and, when they have brought them home, nail the spectacle to the entrances of their homes. At any rate, Poseidonius says that he himself saw this spectacle in many places, and that, although at first he loathed it, afterwards, through his familiarity with it, he could bear it calmly. The heads of enemies of high repute, however, they used to embalm in cedar-oil and exhibit to strangers, and they would not deign to give them back even for a ransom of an equal weight of gold. But the Romans put a stop to these customs, as well as to all those connected with the sacrifices and divinations that are opposed to our usages. They used to strike a human being, whom they had devoted to death, in the back with a sabre, and then divine from his death-struggle. But they would not sacrifice without the Druids. We are told of still other kinds of human sacrifices; for example, they would shoot victims to death with arrows, or impale them in the temples, or, having devised a colossus of straw and wood, throw into the colossus cattle and wild animals of all sorts and human beings, and then make a burnt-offering of the whole thing". (Strabo)

Most accounts of Druids from around 30BC onwards, (Even Caesar) borrowed heavily from Posidonius.

Wrong. We have at least 2000 years of first hand written testimony about Druids. Caesar wrote about them extensively after meeting then in gaul in around 50 BC. Tacitus wrote about them after the Romans wiped them out in Anglesey, Britain, in 60 AD.

How can Tacitus have written a "first hand account" of a people after they were wiped out?

I did not say Tacitus wrote a first hand account about Druids, I only said that about Caesar. I mentioned Tacitus merely in the context of a writer on the subject well before the middle ages. He wrote about Druids after Anglesey.

Wrong. We have at least 2000 years of first hand written testimony about Druids. Caesar wrote about them extensively after meeting then in gaul in around 50 BC. Tacitus wrote about them after the Romans wiped them out in Anglesey, Britain, in 60 AD.

Is there an echo in here?

First hand means the writer was there at the time.....You say yourself....Tacitus wrote about them after they were wiped out. Basing his account heavily on Caesar's....and Caesar was the bugger wot did the wiping.

What part of the phrase "heavily biased second hand account" do you fail to understand?

Logged

If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.

You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands.

The Edge there's no honest way to explain it as the only people who really know where it is have gone over.

I did not say Tacitus wrote a first hand account about Druids, I only said that about Caesar. I mentioned Tacitus merely in the context of a writer on the subject well before the middle ages. He wrote about Druids after Anglesey.

Oh no no no nop no. You're not going to be allowed to backtrack that easily.

This is what you said...verbatim:

Wrong. We have at least 2000 years of first hand written testimony about Druids. Caesar wrote about them extensively after meeting then in gaul in around 50 BC. Tacitus wrote about them after the Romans wiped them out in Anglesey, Britain, in 60 AD.

So you see what you stated was that for 2,000 years people have been writing first hand testimony about the Druids. Which is not only erroneous, but actually impossible, as druids were, as has been established, wiped out by Caesar. You can't meet people who are dead...well you might be able to, but this is not a paranormal thread and far be it from me to get off topic.

You also clearly stated that we, as the ones putting the opposition argument to your views, were in error.or "Wrong" as you so politely and succinctly put it.

We are not.

Logged

If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.

You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands.

The Edge there's no honest way to explain it as the only people who really know where it is have gone over.

First hand means the writer was there at the time.....You say yourself....Tacitus wrote about them after they were wiped out. Basing his account heavily on Caesar's....and Caesar was the bugger wot did the wiping.

What part of the phrase "heavily biased second hand account" do you fail to understand?

Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was the one what did the wiping. While he was chucking the last of the Druids off the Anglesey cliffs, Boudicca led the Iceni and the Trinovante in a rebellion that burned London and Colchester to the ground.

Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was the one what did the wiping. While he was chucking the last of the Druids off the Anglesey cliffs, Boudicca led the Iceni and the Trinovante in a rebellion that burned London and Colchester to the ground.

You have to watch those red heads. It's true what they say about them having bad tempers.

Logged

If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.

You better take care of me Lord, if you don't you're gonna have me on your hands.

The Edge there's no honest way to explain it as the only people who really know where it is have gone over.